RAJESHKUMAR JAYANTILAL JOSHI Vs. GOVINDBHAI K SHEKHDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule was issued in this petition by this Court on 7-3-1994. Ad-interim relief in terms of para 31(c) was also granted. In view of the same, respondents have filed their affidavits-in-reply and petitioner has filed rejoinder. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is finally heard today.

(2.) Here is a University, which is going to be, according to respondent No. 1 its Vice-Chancellor, destitute if respondent No. 2 is not given charge of Registrar even for a period of three months. Here is a University, who finds dearth of persons for appointment to the post of Registrar, except the respondent No. 2. This business is poses eagerness and anxiety in view of the following facts :

(3.) Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Registrar somewhere in the month of February, 1984. He had committed number of irregularities and illegalities in dischage of his duties as the Registrar of the University. As Courts are the temple of justice, Universities are the temple of education. As respondent No. 2 had committed irregularities and illegalities a preliminary inquiry was held against him by an order dated 1-7-1988 by an independent authority. To hold that inquiry, an independent inquiry committee consisting of Mr. M. K. Desai, Retired District and Sessions Judge, Baroda and Mr. R. M. Patel, Vice-Chancellor of Sardar Patel University of Vallabh Vidyanagar, was constituted. The said Committee concluded that respondent No. 2 has run the Department of respondent-University in a casual manner, bypassing all norms of running administration and has undermined the authority of the Vice-Chancellor and has also usurped the powers of the Vice-Chancellor. Said Inquiry Committee has also gave its finding that respondent No. 2 has committed an act of insubordination by defying and challenging the authority of the Vice-Chancellor and he has also tampered with the notes put up before the Vice-Chancellor, resolution of the Board and the Resolutions of the Post-graduate Selection Committee. In view of the said report of the Preliminary Inquiry Committee, the Board of Management of the respondent-University unanimously resolved to hold full-fledged departmental inquiry against respondent No. 2 for the alleged charges of misconduct. A Retired Judge of this Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. P. Desai, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to hold the departmental inquiry. Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. P. Desai (Retired), while summarising the conclusions, observed to the effect that the misconducts, which are found to be proved, are of very grave nature inasmuch as various corrections made in the resolutions are highly improper; charges of interpollation is proved beyond doubt; various acts of omission and commission are without authority and administratively not justifiable; whenever consultations required with the Vice-Chancellor, no consultation has been done; and promotions given to various employees by respondent No. 2 are held proved while the notings made by the office and recommended by the Vice-Chancellor speak other-way round. On the basis of the said inquiry report, a show cause notice for proposed penalty of dismissal was issued to the respondent No, 2. Taking into account the reply given by respondent No. 2 to the said show cause notice, the Board of Management of the respondent-University came to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 is definitely guilty of high degree of insubordination and upheld the findings of the Inquiry Officer. In view of the said decision, the Board of Management resolved that respondent No. 2 is guilty of grave misconduct and that he should not be permitted to hold any charge with the executive powers and responsibilities for a period of two years from the date of issue of the said order and that respondent No. 2 should not be posted back on the post of Registrar, which was held by respondent No. 2 earlier. It was also resolved that respondent No. 2 shall not be vested with any executive powers and responsibilities as a measure of punishment. The said decision of the Board of Management is dated 16-6-1992. In view of this position, it is clear that till 16-6-1994, respondent No. 2 shall not be posted back on the post of Registrar. After that order of the Board of Management, when the petitioner came to know that there is a move to revoke that order of the Board of Management, it was made clear before this Court in Spl. Civil Application No. 7806 of 1993 that the order has become final and has been accepted by the respondent No. 3 (respondent No. 2 in this case). It was also observed that :